October 2016

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Sunday, before our 1st worship service, one of my WW2 vets started sharing with me as I was greeting folks. He started telling me about dodging German subs on their way to England and the European theater. He shared how he and his Army battalion crossed the Rhine River into Germany on his 19th birthday. How he and another 19 year old were the 2 forward observers for their battalion ... point men ... for an entire battalion ... advancing through Germany.

He then started to share about being involved in the liberation of a couple of concentration camps that held the Jews. How they came out ... starving ... emaciated ... fearful. He shared about seeing the gas chamber ... and the ovens ... and the mass graves discovered. He shared that the surviving prisoners had nothing ... barely alive.

I asked him in honest wonder, "What did you do?"

He looked down to the floor ... and then after a brief pause ... he raised his head ... and looked me in the eyes ... and simply said, "We gave them everything we had."

I became very quiet.

I asked his Grandson later if he had ever shared any of that with the family. He said that his Grandfather had never shared a word about it with anyone. I thought you might like to know.

My sister sent this to me, saying she can't help but think about my bride and I as we together face the ugliness that is cancer. The lyrics are powerful and true. The song frankly a personal anthem well before I heard it.

I will love my bride through it. And she will love me through it. We'll fight our fears fiercely and together face this thing down.

Our bond, as strong as it was before is stronger now, made strong by a love sourced in God's love for the both of us.

I don't believe I've felt it any more powerfully than I've felt it of late.

At a hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee yesterday, a single witness — Georgetown law student and “reproductive rights activist” Sandra Fluke — told sympathetic policy-makers that the administration’s so-called contraception mandate should stand … because her peers are going broke buying birth control.

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception),” Fluke reported.

It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.

Craig Bannister at CNSNews.com did the math — and discovered that these co-eds, assuming they’re using the cheapest possible contraception, must be having unprotected sex about three times a day every day to incur that kind of expense. What Fluke is arguing, then, is that her fellow law students have a right to consequence-free sex whenever, wherever. Why, exactly, especially if it costs other people something? When I can’t pay for something, I do without it. Fortunately, in the case of contraception, women can make lifestyle choices that render it unnecessary.

Coming our way via The Anchoress who sums things up nicely with a picture montage worth checking out and then adds:

Yes, how dare a Catholic college actually inflict its Catholicity on the poor victim, who just couldn’t deny herself the promise of her future by going to some less conscientious and less prestigious school, like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Michigan, Brown. The Catholic school should just give up its conscience in order to insure that she needn’t have one, at all.

The shallow selfishness on display is telling.

I sincerely hope Ms. Fluke's mindset is not the prevailing mindset on campus.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Of course, there is a scandal here. A terrible policy scandal. The Obama administration didn’t do — and still hasn’t done — anything to help the opposition in Iran. The Green Movement’s top leaders have been held in solitary confinement for more than a year. Thousands of dissidents, journalists, bloggers, and normal citizens have been imprisoned, tortured, and executed, and the dreadful repression continues apace, as does the terror war against us and our soldiers on the battlefield. The president has still not called for an end to the monstrous theocratic tyranny. Instead, he has catered to the needs of the evil regime, at the cost of American lives, our national security, and his personal legacy.

He should have listened to the Greens in 2009 when they asked rhetorically: “Will (the countries of the West) continue on the track of wishful thinking and push every decision to the future until it is too late?”

So far, he has done just that, and thereby become an accomplice to evil.

You need to read the whole thing as there's tons more and it all needs public airing.

The consequences of this administration's actions (or lack thereof) may be extremely difficult to overcome.

There's an old joke, “If it's true that you can't take it with you, then I ain't goin'!” It flies in the face of the fact that we come into this world with nothing and that is how we leave. Still, in the here and now, we have it, so I've been thinking about what “it” is. What is money?

The dictionary says that “money” is a “medium of exchange”. I confess that the definition doesn't give me much understanding. I know “exchange” means the transfer of goods or services. Yet, the only reason we transfer goods and services is because we want something we don't have but someone else does. So, we give them something they want in exchange for something we want. That means money is closely related to the desire which results in the exchange. But what is the “medium”? Here it gets even more abstract. A medium carries something else; like a sound wave traveling through the air. Air is the medium which carries the sound, but it is not the sound itself. Similarly, money is the medium of an exchange, but it isn't the exchange itself. You might think, “Well, money changes hands all the time.” It does, of course, and that is why we get confused. We think we want money, but we don't. We want what money will buy. Money is an abstraction of our desires.

In “The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy” Douglas Adams mocks the desire for money. He wonders about why human beings are unhappy and says, “Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.” We think we are unhappy because we don't have what we want. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, we think getting what we want (with money) will make us happy. So, you see, money is the medium which carries or expresses our desire. Money is just an abstract symbol.

If you will allow it, here is my definition of money. Money is an abstract object or symbol for desire which facilitates the exchange of goods and services between people. People have had desires long before there was money to express them. In fact, like language, money is so old, we don't really know where it came from or who invented it. People have always traded goods and services through barter, but money, as a abstract medium of desire, makes it much easier for those transfers to take place.

There are many different kinds of money but they will all have similar characteristics. Some of the characteristics which make money possible as a medium of exchange are that is relatively rare and therefore highly valued and accepted by most people. It should be easy to carry, to divide, and to verify. Money is also best when durable and hard to counterfeit. Throughout history, commodities like grain, cattle, salt, precious gems or metals have all been used as money. In our modern world, governments print pieces of paper to facilitate the exchange of goods. The paper, as Adams' joke suggests, is intrinsically worthless. It is only the acceptance of its value by ordinary people that makes it useful as a medium. That acceptance rests on the people's faith in their government. The people trust that the government will make those pieces of paper relatively rare, durable and hard to counterfeit. When a government makes the money more plentiful by printing excessive amounts of it, the economic laws of supply and demand inexorably make everyone's money less valuable. Then the people begin to have less trust in the government that prints it. Historically, this happened in Germany before WWII. During the economic collapse of the Weimar Republic, wheel-barrows full of currency were required to buy a loaf of bread. That collapse led directly to the rise of the Nazi party in the 1930s and the great sorrow it brought to the world. More recently, economic policies in Zimbabwe have resulted in a similar kind of hyper-inflation. The government there actually printed 100 trillion (with a "T"!) dollar notes. In 2008 it was estimated that it would take tens or even hundreds of thousands of Zimbabwean dollars to equal one American penny!

It seems likely in the future that, rather than paper or coin, all currency will be handled electronically. We are moving toward what has been called a “cashless society” as more and more people use credit or debit cards for their transactions. Finance companies continue to improve their methods to deal with the problems of counterfeiting cards or identity theft. Thieves, on the other hand, continue to develop more sophisticated ways of defrauding. But even while that battle rages and the kinks in the system are being worked out, the advantages of never having to print or mint moneys will probably drive governments to encourage these electronic transactions as the standard medium of exchange. Then, the abstract nature of money will be unmistakable. I mean, people get excited over piles of cash, but how can you lust for patterns of electrons inside the memory chip you carry in your wallet or purse?

Some people think that the Bible says that money is the root of all evil. That isn't so. The Apostle Paul in I Timothy 6:10 says that “the LOVE of money is the root of all kinds of evil.” It isn't money itself that is evil. Since money is just an abstraction of human desire, money is no more evil than hunger or thirst. But the obsession with desire, the need to fulfill those desires at all cost, which could be called the “love of money”, leads people to commit all kinds of wickedness. Some of that wickedness we name “greed” or “avarice” or “lust” or “theft” or “fraud”.

As an abstract symbol, money is basically just a tool. Since money is merely an expression of our desires, it makes a wonderful barometer for the health of those desires. Consider what kinds of things you spend money on. Those things you desire indicate what is really important to you; what you value. Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Then He encouraged us to put our treasure in heaven where it is durable and secure. So, the old joke which began this article really expresses a desire for treasure here on earth that will necessarily fade away. Yet, by putting one's desire in heaven, one can take a pass on the many desires which tempt us here on earth. So, the attitude recommended by Jesus literally pulls out by the roots all kinds of evil.

The day after the last presidential election, when Barak Obama beat John McCain, I awoke to a journalist on NPR saying that “now we get to find out who Obama really is.” I have thought about that from time to time over the last three and half years. Consider, here was a guy whose job is to find out about things (like who a presidential candidate really is) and tell us what they found. But this guy didn't know after a year of coverage during the political campaign. Even more telling is that even now after three and a half years in office most of us still don't think we know who Obama really is. Why is that?

Some say we don't know the president's core convictions because he doesn't have any. During the campaign, Obama ran hard against the war in Iraq but in office he followed the exact course that President Bush had laid out. Where's the conviction to follow through on what he says?

Others think he is a socialist who hides that fact from the public and the press who, for whatever reason, won't expose him. Toward the end of the healthcare reform legislation, Scott Brown, an upstart Republican, won a special election to the Senate, in Massachusetts, (Ted Kennedy's seat!) by running specifically against the healthcare reform plan in that highly Democratic state. That election removed the filibuster-proof majority the Democrats had. But still, Obama rammed this government intrusion through Congress over the objections of every single Republican and some Democrats. To this day Obama blames the Republicans in Congress for being unwilling to compromise with him. When he didn't need them, he rammed through his agenda however possible. Now that he needs the Republican's help, he seems surprised that they have a different vision for America.

Some think he is just in over his head. He was a state legislator and then a U.S. Senator who didn't even complete one term when he was elected President. The leader of the free world is probably not the best place for on-the-job training.

Now the Republicans are involved in seeking the best opponent against Obama. Of the remaining four, only Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are likely to win the chance to go against the President. Many smart people think that only Romney would be able to beat the President in November. But I heard a journalist say about Santorum that “you get the sense that if you were sitting with him at a bar, Rick Santorum would be telling you the exact same things he says in his speeches.”

Romney has been thoroughly vetted. He has the character and leadership experience to make a fine president. But in our primary on May 22nd, I plan to vote for Rick Santorum. Americans respect and will elect an honest man, even one with whom they disagree. Come November, Americans will reject the President they still don't know for one they know well.

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Many in Congress are opposing the proposed changes, which would require the passage of new legislation before being put in place.

“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a Republican from California, said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more.”

Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

Monday, February 27, 2012

The Catholic Church adheres to an ethic of substantive human purposes—things like life, truth, and justice—that establish the parameters of ethically acceptable choices and behavior. To do the right thing is to act within these boundaries; to do what is wrong is to act outside them.

The secularist mindset, by contrast, favors a libertarian ethic of process and procedure: values like democracy, equal opportunity, and that epitome of the process ethic, the "right to choose." To be sure, most people rightly live by a mix of values of both kinds—partly substantive, partly procedural—but the differences in emphasis are real and often extremely important.

According to the process ethic, there is in principle no such thing as absolute right and wrong, no substantive good that can't be violated in a pinch if violating it furthers the exercise of choice by a sufficient number of persons.

So what if making religious institutions part of a system for providing contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients (this is what Obama's February "accommodation" would do) violates the consciences of people with traditional views on matters of substantive right and wrong? The overriding procedural imperative of the secular culture requires permitting, even subsidizing, the choices of those who want these things.

A Washington Post columnist called President Obama's purported concession to the bishops' objections to the contraception-sterilization-abortifacient mandate (a proposal hailed even by some Catholic individuals and groups) "a dodge—a quite clever and positive one." So it was—a skillful procedural sleight-of-hand aimed not at upholding some strongly held standard of right and wrong but doing a deal.

Meanwhile the Catholic Church stands as the principal obstacle to realization of the secularists' procedural paradise of all-but unconditional choice. However the current controversy ends, this larger conflict will continue.

And it will largely continue because far too many in the Church will allow it to continue.

The Obama administration, which promised during its transition to power that it would enhance “whistle-blower laws to protect federal workers,” has been more prone than any administration in history in trying to silence and prosecute federal workers.

The Espionage Act, enacted back in 1917 to punish those who gave aid to our enemies, was used three times in all the prior administrations to bring cases against government officials accused of providing classified information to the media. It has been used six times since the current president took office.

Setting aside the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst who is accused of stealing thousands of secret documents, the majority of the recent prosecutions seem to have everything to do with administrative secrecy and very little to do with national security.

In case after case, the Espionage Act has been deployed as a kind of ad hoc Official Secrets Act, which is not a law that has ever found traction in America, a place where the people’s right to know is viewed as superseding the government’s right to hide its business.

In the most recent case, John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. officer who became a Democratic staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was charged under the Espionage Act with leaking information to journalists about other C.I.A. officers, some of whom were involved in the agency’s interrogation program, which includedwaterboarding.

For those of you keeping score, none of the individuals who engaged in or authorized the waterboarding of terror suspects have been prosecuted, but Mr. Kiriakou is in federal cross hairs, accused of talking to journalists and news organizations, including The New York Times.

Mr. Tapper said that he had not planned on raising the issue, but hearing Mr. Carney echo the praise for reporters who dug deep to bring out the truth elsewhere got his attention.

“I have been following all of these case, and it’s not like they are instances of government employees leaking the location of secret nuclear sites,” Mr. Tapper said. “These are classic whistle-blower cases that dealt with questionable behavior by government officials or its agents acting in the name of protecting America.”

Mr. Carney said in the briefing that he felt it was appropriate “to honor and praise the bravery” of Ms. Colvin and Mr. Shadid, but he did not really engage Mr. Tapper’s broader question, saying he could not go into information about specific cases. He did not respond to an e-mail message seeking comment.